The CX-9 engine works best on premium fuel (93) and makes its max 250 hp. On regular, hp drops to 227, although makes the same 310 lb of torque. 89 and 91 octane would make something between that, like 240 hp.

If you saw the score C/D gave the Atlas for the Exterior Styling, you'd realize very quickly just how subjective it is. It scored the same as the Durango (8), but the exterior styling was a Low for the Atlas.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

The VW also has the better warranty. 60mo/60k bumper to bumper I believe. That's literally one of the best in the business.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

The VW also has the better warranty. 60mo/60k bumper to bumper I believe. That's literally one of the best in the business.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

The VW also has the better warranty. 60mo/60k bumper to bumper I believe. That's literally one of the best in the business.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

The VW also has the better warranty. 60mo/60k bumper to bumper I believe. That's literally one of the best in the business.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

The VW also has the better warranty. 60mo/60k bumper to bumper I believe. That's literally one of the best in the business.

If you have a family of 5 the Atlas is much better at it's intended job. If you have a family of 4 an AWD full sized sedan makes a lot more sense if you are in it for the driving pleasure. On a side note, I can't believe I am actually sticking up for VW, over Mazda.

The VW also has the better warranty. 60mo/60k bumper to bumper I believe. That's literally one of the best in the business.

Am I the only one that vastly prefers the looks and functionality of the VW over the Mazda? I'm glad the CX9 is fun to drive and all but I don't really see the appeal of a swoopy, overstyled CUV that falls flat at its main purpose— transporting families.

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

Also, you should actually read the article.

And you may not prefer the looks (maybe get glasses), but the CX-9 is far better looking. The Atlas isn't ugly, just bland.

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

Also, you should actually read the article.

And you may not prefer the looks (maybe get glasses), but the CX-9 is far better looking. The Atlas isn't ugly, just bland.

Right, Car and Driver, not Sports Cars Illustrated. Cruising comfortably down the highway, or down a pothole infested urban interior street without getting beaten to death are driving. There is no point in penalizing a vehicle for not being a great driver's car when that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to hold stuff, and it is better at that than the Mazda. I think the best overall large SUV in this test is the Atlas.

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

Also, you should actually read the article.

And you may not prefer the looks (maybe get glasses), but the CX-9 is far better looking. The Atlas isn't ugly, just bland.

I read the article. The CX9 is ugly, can't tow, has the least amount of room in the second row, and has a useless third row. It sounds like it would be the most fun large CUV to autocross though.

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

Also, you should actually read the article.

And you may not prefer the looks (maybe get glasses), but the CX-9 is far better looking. The Atlas isn't ugly, just bland.

I read the article. The CX9 is ugly, can't tow, has the least amount of room in the second row, and has a useless third row. It sounds like it would be the most fun large CUV to autocross though.

Pretty much this. The CX-9 fails in what it is trying to be, so who cares how much fun it is to drive. I would buy a 86 if that was all I cared about was fun, but I bought a GTI because I need the back seat. If the back seat were superfluous like the ones in the CX-9, I would not have bought a GTI either.

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

Also, you should actually read the article.

And you may not prefer the looks (maybe get glasses), but the CX-9 is far better looking. The Atlas isn't ugly, just bland.

I read the article. The CX9 is ugly, can't tow, has the least amount of room in the second row, and has a useless third row. It sounds like it would be the most fun large CUV to autocross though.

Sit in the 3rd row, you'd be surprised how useful the 3rd row is. okay, if you're 6'4", it'll be torture ...

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

This logic could extend to lots of comparos but it is not how C&D normally operates. In a comparison of trucks for towing boats and trailers, can you imagine C&D saying go with a Ford Ranger or Honda Ridgeline since they drive the best....sure they don't tow much, but they are more fun to drive. No, that would be crazy. The point of a truck for towing a trailer is to tow a trailer. Here, the point of a three row SUV is to move people and cargo. It is just as illogical to ignore that fact as to ignore a truck's towing capacity when comparing best trucks for towing. Sure the CX-9 drives better but the Pilot might drive better too if Honda decided to forego a useable third row and a comfortable for adults second row.

Well, let's see, the publication is called "Car and Driver". That should be a dead giveaway that extra weight is giving to driving dynamics. And the Mazda is also the best driving of this bunch (should be no surprise).

Also, you should actually read the article.

And you may not prefer the looks (maybe get glasses), but the CX-9 is far better looking. The Atlas isn't ugly, just bland.

I read the article. The CX9 is ugly, can't tow, has the least amount of room in the second row, and has a useless third row. It sounds like it would be the most fun large CUV to autocross though.

Pretty much this. The CX-9 fails in what it is trying to be, so who cares how much fun it is to drive. I would buy a 86 if that was all I cared about was fun, but I bought a GTI because I need the back seat. If the back seat were superfluous like the ones in the CX-9, I would not have bought a GTI either.

I think the CX-9 does exactly what Mazda wants it to do - they are not so worried about "how many kids can you stuff in here" or "does it have 21 cup holders". It's true that the article may be a little oddly slanted to prefer driving dynamics rather than usability, where the Pilot and Atlas are better, but that's Car and Driver. And if you read the article throughout and want usability, I think you know where to go from the write-up.

I suspect the Mazda is like other SUVs - a design for four people and more in a pinch for short distances. That's how I would describe our SUV. No where to put luggage for 7 people but an excellent long distance touring vehicle for four people.

The VW does seem like a sweet ride. I like it better than the CX-9 for sure.

What is really interesting is that non-press fleet Atlas models seem to be better finished. CR just praised the Atlas for how well the interior is finished relative to the class. Perhaps the press fleet of Atlas are still considered preproduction? remember, editors at CR can practically smell panel gaps.

ZF builds the 9 speed for Honda. FCA and Jaguar/Land Rover also use that transmission. The Pilot will probably get the new 10 speed automatic used in the 2018 Odyssey and Accord 2.0T models in its midcycle refresh, and the newer infotainment system from the Odyssey. Hope Honda also firms up the suspension, adds more sound insulation and importantly, gives it thicker and larger brake rotors. The Acadia in this test will also get GM's new 9 speed automatic soon, fixing the main issue with that vehicle.

Have to take C&Ds prices with a grain of salt. GM products almost always sell for more under MSRP than Honda. The prices given are a starting point but not accurate as to value for your money. One of the biggest weaknesses of these reviews.

"Dodge has been selling the Durango for so long that we almost expect it to have an in-dash cassette player, with the volume knob broken off after being turned to 11and Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast" stuck in the deck"

That is what I would call an Easter Egg (Dodge has a different version than Jeep).

For those grumbling that the most practical vehicle should have won the comparison:

1) Reread the snarky yet spot-on lead paragraphs.
2) Get over yourself and buy or lease a minivan - the Honda Odyssey or Chrysler Pacifica address the practicality equation far better than any of the vehicles on test here.

I would like to see a road test of the lower trim packages of the CX-9. Just completed a 1200 mile jaunt with a friends Touring model. I thought it was loud, rough, not very comfortable and we averaged 17 mpg with 5 aboard. Not impressive, and if the others in this test are worse, what a sad state of the industry.

I am not in love with our CX-7. If I went CUV shopping again it wouldn't be for a CX-9.

It may be the sportiest driver, but that's kinda irrelevant in a mommy wagon.

From what I recall of the CX-7, it was a pretty crude vehicle, that was noisy, drank gas, but was quick and sporty. The CX-9 is definitely on the tighter side inside, but it's a far cry from what the CX-7 was.

I am not in love with our CX-7. If I went CUV shopping again it wouldn't be for a CX-9.

It may be the sportiest driver, but that's kinda irrelevant in a mommy wagon.

If I'm not mistaken the CX-7 was basically a 1st gen Ford Edge right? For the record - this CX-9 has been reengineered from the ground up - and shares NOTHING from their previous relationship with Ford.

I am not in love with our CX-7. If I went CUV shopping again it wouldn't be for a CX-9.

It may be the sportiest driver, but that's kinda irrelevant in a mommy wagon.

From what I recall of the CX-7, it was a pretty crude vehicle, that was noisy, drank gas, but was quick and sporty. The CX-9 is definitely on the tighter side inside, but it's a far cry from what the CX-7 was.

What I learned from that purchase was that "quick and sporty" is an admirable trait; but despite what C&D says, it's not what counts in CUV.

At the time I bought it, C&D declared it the sportiest driver in the segment and that impressed me on the test drive; but as time goes on I think I probably should have bought an Outback.

I am not in love with our CX-7. If I went CUV shopping again it wouldn't be for a CX-9.

It may be the sportiest driver, but that's kinda irrelevant in a mommy wagon.

If I'm not mistaken the CX-7 was basically a 1st gen Ford Edge right? For the record - this CX-9 has been reengineered from the ground up - and shares NOTHING from their previous relationship with Ford.

The Original CX-9 was a slightly stretched version of the Ford Edge. The CX-7 was a mix of Mazda 3 and 5 bits, although some of the structure also had the Edge in it, and the 6 was shared with the original Ford Fusion. Figure back in the 90's and early 2000's Ford and Mazda shared a platform.

"..if you have too many offspring—perhaps as few as two—your family will have outgrown the Mazda CX-9. Its third row is tiny and tough to access, and even the second row is comparatively tight. Once you really, truly need your minivan surrogate, you’ve already sized yourself out of this tall wagon." If that is the case then 2nd is where the CX-9 belongs no matter how nice the rest of the package is. This is not a sports sedan and should not win because it hustles around a corner the best. If that is your main need, buy an actual wagon.

The Honda's inability to fit a full 48" wide sheet of plywood is disappointing. If I recall correctly, the original Pilot could do that.

CX-7 is OLD Ford Platforms and Ford Engine with Ford ...well you know...Ford..

Mazda today is 100% Mazda, they are the most independent car maker in the world, and need supporting to survive. USA is Mazda's worse performing market, it has not grown in 15 years, the rest of the Mazda world has doubled in comparison over same time..

When the CX-9 first came out they had a signature model at the local dealership marked sold. It was the first one they had received and I was talking to the sales guy about it while my car was being serviced. Said the guy who purchased it was 28, single, and paid cash for it...full MSRP. We had a laugh about it, although probably for different reasons.

A twenty something single guy with $50k in his pocket bought a mommy wagon?

What kind of sick bastard does that?

Lol. I know somebody in a similar situation who got a Durango R/T, and another with a Camry Hybrid. To each his own I suppose. I was driving TSX and Si when I was in my 20's and single. I wish I had got that S2000 and hung onto it.

A twenty something single guy with $50k in his pocket bought a mommy wagon?

What kind of sick bastard does that?

Lol. I know somebody in a similar situation who got a Durango R/T, and another with a Camry Hybrid. To each his own I suppose. I was driving TSX and Si when I was in my 20's and single. I wish I had got that S2000 and hung onto it.

I can understand the Durango R/T, it's quite a manly vehicle and a good fit for someone who likes the size and space but still wants it to feel and sound like a muscle car.

A twenty something single guy with $50k in his pocket bought a mommy wagon?

What kind of sick bastard does that?

Lol. I know somebody in a similar situation who got a Durango R/T, and another with a Camry Hybrid. To each his own I suppose. I was driving TSX and Si when I was in my 20's and single. I wish I had got that S2000 and hung onto it.

When I was 22 I bought my first brand new car; it was an black 05' SRT-4.

/shrug/ The last time that Volkswagen had such a scandal - well, before Audi's 1st Wives Club of Unintended Acceleration - it was bizarrely alleged to espionage at General Motors. However, I can't help but find familiarity in the hardpoints of the new Atlas SUV: is it in fact multidimensional that the newest crossover appears as related to the lame, departed Chrysler minivan minus-the-StowNGo-seats as meets the eye?

The sport would have been to many $$$$ but the other trim levels would have played well with the field. Granted, it got beat by the Durango SIX years ago, but isn't the Explorer the best selling in the genre. And where's the Highlander? Wasn't it just refreshed?

Good point, perhaps becuase the Explorer lost a comparo to the Durango back in 2011. This is also missing the Hyundai Santa Fe.

The Kia Sorento would have been used instead as its newer. An SX-L V6 AWD would have not beaten out the Mazda or Atlas, but would beat out the Acadia and Pilot and tied with the Durango. The Santa Fe would have came in last with the Pilot. Santa Fe and Sorento are fine vehicles. but lack suspension refinement, more so in the Santa Fe. The Toyota Highlander should have been in this test however and it would have came in 2nd.

I am currently on business trip and the rental I have is a Dodge Durango GT (not AWD) and there is one point I need to make to Car and Driver regarding what they said about the Durango and it's "utter lack of feedback from the steering."
I felt the same way when I got this thing, but having owned a couple Dodge's including a Challenger Hellcat, I knew that Dodge and FCA offer probably one of the best infotainment/Nav/Command Center in the business.
So I went into the Controls, then Settings, and voila, there it was an option for steering. It was in "Comfort". I switched it to Normal and drove it that way and immediately noticed a much improved steering feedback that made it feel much better. I also tried the Sport setting. This made the steering quick and feedback improved even more. However I felt on the highway the Sport setting got twitchy where the slightest movement of your hand and therefore the wheel made the Durango start to move around a bit too much. Clearly the preferred setting in the twisty roads if you want immediate responses and feedback. I switched it back to Normal.
What people have to realize here is the Durango is the TRUCK of this group, not some crossover based on a car. So clearly it will be larger, and heavier.
I don't feel the Durango lacks in power. It's clearly a bit slower than the competition due to the weight, but driving it around and driving it the way that 99% of people will drive it, you don't feel it slow. It actually gets out of the blocks pretty decently when needed. I was climbing some grades in northern AZ on a road trip with it and though going up mountain grades it had to downshift too keep the 75-80 mph pace, it did so with no issues.
If you are more of a truck guy/gal than a more sissy crossover the Durango is a solid pick. It won't have the off-road ability of a 4Runner but it's solid in the dirt and mild off-road too, as I took it camping when I met up with my brother and his family too and we went pretty deep into the pines.
Have had zero issues with this Durango in the 2k miles I've put on it in the past 16 days.

Also Car and Driver SHOULD of tested the CX-9 on 87 Octane like all the others were. Testing it on the 93 Octane gave it it's full power, but 93 Octane is not available in many states, and there will be few owners who will pump even 91 Octane into their SUV, their sports cars or sports sedans yes, but their SUV's, nope. Car and Driver needs to prioritize their testing a bit better. They seemed to give the CX-9 top marks due to how nice the interior was, how nice the vehicle looks, and how sporty it drives. These are not the top 3 qualities the vast majority of SUV shoppers will be looking at. SUV shoppers who no longer need ALL the room of a minivan but still want room and utility, that will be the driving force of much of their choice.

C&D marked down the Pilot for it's smoking brakes, but again, 95% of it's owners won't be driving the snot out of it on twisty mountain grades, that's just not what these vehicles are for or how the owners will use them.

I was surprised to see the Honda that low also. Perhaps their mojo was taken away by the car gods for subjecting the retinas of children to the new Civic. As for GM, it seems that most of their offerings come in mid pack. How do you win softball games? With singles and doubles, not necessarily home runs.

I was surprised to see the Honda that low also. Perhaps their mojo was taken away by the car gods for subjecting the retinas of children to the new Civic. As for GM, it seems that most of their offerings come in mid pack. How do you win softball games? With singles and doubles, not necessarily home runs.

The Honda Pilot seemed to have carried some non Honda like traits from the previous generation while the Civic mostly rid itself of that. Nevertheless the Honda is still a fine choice and besides, no one is gonna hustle a Pilot like a Civic Si. Honda will address most of the Pilots shortcomings in a mid cycle refresh.

Should've at least invited one of the Korean twins Santa Fe or Sorrento - though I believe either of them would've only finished midpack. The CX-9 is a good CUV - but its 3rd row is so small I'd never choose it if I actually NEEDED 3 rows. Out of this entire field I'd likely take a VW Atlas SEL.

I know how most everyone has collectively lost focus when it comes to SUVs and their actual off-roading reason for being, but none of these can do what a minivan can in terms of easily carrying a family and car seats and all the junk kids need/want in a package that makes life as easy as possible for the grownups, and given that they are unlikely to actually off-road in these--regardless of the vehicles' abilities--this is a matter of... image?

Seems like the negatives of weight, a lack of gaping sliding side doors, less room to move around the full cabin, etc., make SUVs unsuitable for minivan duty, just as minivans are unsuited for off-road duty. And since buyers aren't likely to off-road at all, if would seem like an AWD minivan with butched-up looks would be ideal.

Dodge already tried the "sports" looks thing with their "Man Van" a while back. Maybe these days an Allroad-style "off-roader"-looking Odyssey is the answer. Or actually equipping an Odyssey Pilot-style mechanicals. Or... these. No accounting for taste, I suppose.

Should've at least invited one of the Korean twins Santa Fe or Sorrento - though I believe either of them would've only finished midpack. The CX-9 is a good looking CUV - but its 3rd row is so small I'd never choose it if I actually NEEDED 3 rows. Out of this entire field I'd likely take a VW Atlas SEL.

I've seen a couple of Atlasauri in the wild, now, and they are handsome enough. Even the yellow, which is certainly a stand out. But 50 large? My guess is that the mid range SE will be the hot ticket. Good to see they upped the warranty. If they did that with their other cars...

Am I the only one that vastly prefers the looks and functionality of the VW over the Mazda? I'm glad the CX9 is fun to drive and all but I don't really see the appeal of a swoopy, overstyled CUV that falls flat at its main purpose— transporting families.

I agree with the functionality of the Atlas being much better but looks, LMAO. Atlas is ugly like most other entries here. Best lookers are Mazda and Durango.

It's a shame to see how far the Pilot has fallen. The last two generations were merely class average from the get-go...neither were really all that reliable to start either.

The Traverse will be the vehicle to wait for. More space and newer powertrains than the Acadia, and a better interior than the Atlas. The CX-9 looks very awkward in person and has some pretty horrible packaging. The front overhang is obnoxious even for a FWD car.

Agree about the Pilot. Honda may have strayed a little too far from the MDX in an attempt not to affect sales of the Acura. At the same time, Honda found great success with this same type of formula, so why fix what's not broken? If sales start to slip, then tweaks to the chassis settings would fix things up quickly.

On the flip side, the Atlas may not have strayed far enough from the Q7 and may encroach on the sales of the Audi as a lower-cost, 3-row alternative.